New Delhi, April 7 (NationPress) The Union government has urged the Supreme Court to revisit the 2018 Sabarimala ruling that allows women of all ages to enter the temple. On Tuesday, during the proceedings in front of a nine-judge Constitution Bench, the Centre asserted that the concepts of “patriarchy” and “gender stereotypes” are not rooted in Indian culture.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, addressed the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, emphasizing that Indian society has traditionally held women in a position of “reverence and respect” in both spiritual and public spheres.

“India is not characterized by the same level of patriarchy or gender stereotyping that is often perceived in the West,” SG Mehta stated, further claiming that “women have always been treated equally and often regarded with higher esteem in India.”

Challenging the reliance on the idea of patriarchy in arguments advocating for women's entry into the Sabarimala temple, the government’s second-highest legal official argued that such notions “have never existed” in Indian culture.

“Our society is unique, as we revere women. From the President of India to the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court judges, we show respect to our leading women. Therefore, we should refrain from imposing foreign concepts like patriarchy or gender stereotypes,” he argued.

SG Mehta also referenced the historical role of women in the Constituent Assembly debates, referring to them as the “founding mothers of the Constitution,” and asserted that India’s constitutional foundation reflects profound respect for women.

He elaborated on Article 26 of the Constitution, specifically the phrase “any section thereof,” arguing that it was intentionally crafted to safeguard the rights of smaller groups within larger religious communities.

“The term ‘any section thereof’ was purposefully included by the framers to encompass not just entire denominations but also segments within a religious denomination,” SG Mehta explained, assuring that this provision allows diverse sects and sub-communities to manage their own religious practices autonomously.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General contended that the 2018 ruling, which permitted women to enter the Sabarimala temple, was “incorrectly decided” and requires legal reassessment.

He contested the perspective in the verdict that the exclusion of women constituted “untouchability” under Article 17, arguing that the restrictions were based on age rather than social exclusion.

“There is no blanket exclusion of women in Ayyappa temples; Sabarimala’s restrictions are due to the distinct nature of the deity,” he asserted.

During the hearing, the Constitution Bench clarified that it would not delve into the correctness of the Sabarimala decision itself but would focus solely on the seven constitutional queries referred to it.

The apex court is currently evaluating broader issues concerning the relationship between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, including the extent of judicial examination over religious customs and the scope of denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26.

In addition to the Sabarimala matter, the Constitution Bench will also address related issues such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, the rights of Parsi women to access fire temples post-interfaith marriages, the legitimacy of excommunication practices, and the legality of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The nine-judge Bench, which includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is hearing the case according to a predetermined schedule.

Arguments from parties supporting the review petitions are set from April 7 to April 9, followed by counterarguments from the opposing side between April 14 and April 16. Final submissions are expected to conclude by April 22.